**5. SPI evaluation**

186 Biogas

go along with shortened revenue. With this precondition the optimization of the maximum structure presented in Figure 2 but with only one central 500 kWel CHP unit whereas the

The revenue is narrowed but not as much as it was in scenario 1. To use a 500 kWel central CHP would cause a revenue reduction of yearly 50,000 € within a payout period of 15 years.

Structure Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Substrate costs max. min. max. min. max. min.

Total investment costs 2,894,519 2,894,519 2,894,519 2,894,519 2,824,519 2,824,519

Total produced electricity 3,826 3,826 3,900 3,900 3,826 3,826 Total produced heat 4,591 4,591 4,680 4,680 4,591 4,591

in (205 € / MWh) 784,281 784,281 799,500 799,500 707,766 707,766

(22,5 € / MWh) 103,296 103,296 105,300 105,300 103,296 103,296 Total revenue [€/yr] 887,576 887,576 904,800 904,800 811,062 811,062

Fermentation 114,423 114,423 116,090 116,090 114,423 114,423 CHPs 75,556 75,556 75,556 75,556 51,346 51,346 Transport 60,286 60,286 64,121 64,121 60,286 60,286 Substrates 213,561 129,488 213,400 131,740 213,561 129,488 Electricity 34,432 34,432 35,100 35,100 34,432 34,432 Total operating costs [€/yr] 498,258 414,185 504,267 422,607 474,048 389,975

depreciation 389,319 473,392 400,534 482,194 337,015 421,088 Depreciation for 15 years\* 192,968 192,968 192,968 192,968 188,301 188,301

depreciation\* 196,351 280,424 207,566 289,226 148,714 232,787

It turned out that the profitability of a fermenter on location 2 is lower than on the other locations. It was never preferred in any optimum structure. The other locations have one advantage – the shared usage of biogas pipelines whereas low additional costs for location 1 have to be born. There are never heating pipelines from the different locations to the center considered in the optimum technology networks. Just the biogas is transported; heat is produced centrally and distributed within a district heating network, although additional biomass furnaces are required. In scenario 1 the missing corn silage availability was compensated by a higher amount of intercrops, referring to the CH4 content, and it shows

rest of the optimum structure (Figure 3) stays the same.

Investment costs [€]

Revenue for electricity fed

Revenue for district heating

Operating Costs [€/yr]

Operating result without

Operating result with

Table 9. PNS results summary

Products [MWh / yr] and Revenues [€/yr]

**4.3.3 Comparison of PNS' optimum solution and the scenarios** 

Table 9 overviews the results of the three optimizations described before.

Optimum

Based on the economic results of the PNS optimization and previous SPI evaluation of different intercrops, a footprint for the PNS results was calculated. The evaluation includes every substrate, transport, net electricity and infrastructure for fermenters and CHP units. SPIonExcel already provides a huge database of LCIA datasets which can be used for modeling the scenarios. In case of intercrops substrate the SPI value for conservation tillage + self-loading trailer from Table 4 was used.


Table 10. LCIA results based on PNS scenarios

The overall footprint points out the environmental impact for one year of production. In case of the optimum solution it would need 93.08 km² of area which has to be reserved to embed the production sustainably into nature. The overall footprint is shared between both products according the amount of output and the price per MWh (electricity: 205 €/MWh; heat: 22.5 €/MWh). Price allocation of the footprint leads to a higher footprint for the higher valued product.

Scenario 1 has a benefit from the ecological point of view and almost equal revenue according to Table 9. For scenario 2 there is only a slightly difference to the optimum solution because of two small CHP units instead one.

Main impact categories are in every case 'fossil carbon', 'emissions to water' and 'air'. This mainly derives from the utilization of net electricity which contributes around 45 % to the whole footprint. Main contribution to this categories stemming from net electricity and

Economic and Ecological Potential Assessment for Biogas Production Based on Intercrops 189

The three pillar principle of sustainability serves as conceptual framework to conclude this study. Not only economic and ecological factors are important to implement innovative structures. Often we forget about the social component, the third pillar of sustainability. Not to do so farmers' opinion about intercrops where taken into account. It turned out that intercrops production also abuts on farmers' psychological barriers and the need of intensive cooperation among farmers in the surrounding of a biogas plant. In conjunction with economic risk and high investments, determining farm management for at least 15 years it becomes obvious, that well-considered decisions are to be made. Therefore, it is not astonishing that farmers hesitate, if economic benefits do not clearly compensate social an managerial risks of biogas production from intercrops. Furthermore, the situation that biogas production from corn is favorable regarding practicability in comparison to biogas production from intercrops, reduces farmers motivation to decide for the latter. But even the growing and harvesting of intercrops requires additional work and the strict time frame to cultivate fields, the risk of soil compaction through harvest and potential lower yields of main crops after winter intercrops are counterarguments to cooperate with farmers already running biogas plants. Higher feed-in tariffs for biogas from intercrops seem to be inevitable and sensitization of decision makers and farmers is needed to emphasize that the planting of intercrops holds many advantages and that intercrops reduce the ecological footprint decisively. Although a higher energy input for agricultural machines is required because of the additional workload for intercrops. In summary the energy balance per hectare including biogas production points out a benefit. In times of green taxes a reduction of CO2 emissions can diminish production costs. More biogas output per hectare raises the income beside minimized mineral fertilizer demand reduces costs and lowers the ecological footprint. Furthermore, biogas production from intercrops contributes to a reduction of nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture. With the transport optimization in-between the network the ecological footprint decreases caused by intelligent fermenter set-up going along with less transport kilometers and fuel demand. A farmer association running an optimal network described before lowers the investment risk and ensures continuous operation and stable substrate availability. On the other hand an association has the potential to strengthen the community and the social cohesion of regions. Some of the advantages mentioned before effect the regional value added positively. On closer examination it could be shown that intercrops can play an important role in sustainable agriculture for the future by running a social and ecological acceptable network and still being lucrative for the operators and the region. Finally biogas production from intercrops does not affect the security of food supply. On the contrary it may even increase

The research presented here was carried out under the project "Syn-Energy" funded by the Austrian Climate and Energy Fund and carried out within the program "NEUE ENERGIEN

Aigner, A., Sticksel, E., Hartmann, S. (2008) Derzeitige Einschätzung von Zwischenfrüchten

als Substrat zur Biogasgewinnung, In: LfL Bayern, Date of access: 16.5.2008,

**6. Conclusion** 

productivity in the case of stockless organic farming.

**7. Acknowledgment** 

**8. References** 

2020" (grant Number 819034).

Available from:

machinery input in agriculture which are still mainly fossil based. This is also the main optimization potential for a further decrease of the footprint.

Fig. 7. Comparison of electricity production

Compared to other electricity provision system the optimum solution from the PNS has an ecological benefit in footprint ranging from 61 to 96 % which is pointed out in Figure 7. Although the footprint of the optimum solution could be optimized by using the produced electricity for itself and not selling to the grid (which has economic reasons because of high feed-in tariffs) the ecological benefit compared to other sources is obvious. Every contribution to a greener net infects simultaneously all net participants.
